[David J] Do we have a copy of the Ten Wings from Confucius' time or earlier? No, we don't. And conclusions, based upon much later versions, are conjecture.

[Jerry] The problem is the theory that there was an earlier version of the 10 wings which was 'translated' into a later Chinese language is also conjecture.

You misunderstood the earlier reference and the present one, too.

If we had a copy from Confucius time and place we'd be in a better position to tell whether his follwers were lying or not. The stories that Confucius had a hand in the I Ching is disputed. In addition, what the Ten Wings say is disputed.

The Ten Wings say that the oracle was originally based on a genuine attempt to ask nature questions. Rutt throws this away.

The Ten Wings say that the trigrams came first from Fu Hsi. Rutt throws this away.

Rutt says that Confucius had nothing to do with the I Ching.

Then all you are left with is a bunch of meaningless gibberish put together for the sole purpose of fooling people, mainly rulers, and making money.

When the documents at hand say that there are versions which date from before the versions you have, whether this is legitimate testimony or only "hearsay" we may not know, but it is not conjecture.

As regards to retranslations of things, doesn't the Mawangdui version show signs of being a retranslation, or do you think that "loan" characters was what the original was written in?

> No one seems to have disproved Han historian Sima Qian?s assertion that verifiable annual records of history begin with the year 841 B.C. <

I have read that ships from China sailed to the Persian Gulf and began trade about 556 BC. It is my hope that there will be found, in some long-forgotten library stack in the Middle East, original and/or translated Chinese documents from way back.

I haven't read Rutt's analysis, so I can't comment on that. Frankly, I think your comments reveal that you are out of your depth here. Fu Xi is a mythical creature like Paul Bunyan. If we discount Fu Xi does that mean that everything in the '10 Wings' is bunk? Not at all. You simply have to get used to the idea that ancient Chinese lit is full of places where new thoughts are ascribed to ancient mythological beings. If you really study the subject (as I have, for many years) you'll see what I mean. Likewise, does everyplace where you see Zi yue (Confucius said) have to really be a quote from Confucius or the document should be consigned to the trash? Not at all. You need to get over a rigid expectation like this that it's either all literally true or it's all nonsense. As far as "When the documents at hand say that there are versions which date from before the versions you have, whether this is legitimate testimony or only "hearsay" we may not know, but it is not conjecture." -I don't know where you are getting this and I wonder if perhaps you yourself are engaging in the time honored Chinese process of putting words into the mouths of the ancients. The Mawangdui documents (which I studied in the original manuscript form for my masters at Yale) were not retranslations. Over the years the script in use has changed. Earlier manuscripts use earlier forms. This is different from translation or retranslation. Once again, I suggest you let it go as you are very much out of your depth.

The word “yue” meant, “to say, to speak,” and was used in classical Chinese to introduce quotations. The character “zi3” was a suffix used in the names of highly regarded individuals, meaning something like, “master.” So, Confucius was “Kongzi,” and other early masters were, Mengzi, Xunzi, Laozi, Zhuangzi, etc. (The name “Confucius,” by the way, was invented by Jesuits.) The phrase “Zi yue” appears frequently in early texts. One had to know the general context in order to know which “master” it referred to. In one of the Ten Wings texts, the “Xi Ci Zhuan,” there are a number of quotes introduced by “Zi Yue,” and these are generally attributed to Kongzi.

You wrote, > I haven't read Rutt's analysis, so I can't comment on that.

I wish you would, as the original comments I made were specifically about inconsistancies in the first 50 or so pages of Rutt's "Zhouyi."

> Frankly, I think your comments reveal that you are out of your depth here.<

No, I think you haven't been paying attention properly.

I have been pointing to logical inconsistancies, and I haven't gone too far beyond that. I've kept my own point of view out of it well enough that Michael couldn't even tell what it was.

> Fu Xi is a mythical creature like Paul Bunyan.

According to Huang Wen-Shan this is not quite true, as there is a written record from the time. And yes I know that myths have been attached to him. And yes, I know that many consider him entirely mythical.

> If we discount Fu Xi does that mean that everything in the '10 Wings' is bunk? Not at all.

I agree, but Richard Rutt doesn't. I'm arguing against his bias. Portraying Zhouyi as a "bunch of meaningless gibberish put together for the sole purpose of fooling people, mainly rulers, and making money" is my characterization of Rutts point of view.

> You simply have to get used to the idea that ancient Chinese lit is full of places where new thoughts are ascribed to ancient mythological beings.

I am well aware of the practice of attributing great feats to one person, or signing the name of a long dead person to a new work.

> If you really study the subject (as I have, for many years) you'll see what I mean.

Well, I've been studing the I Ching for about 35 years. Is that OK?

> Likewise, does everyplace where you see Zi yue (Confucius said) have to really be a quote from Confucius or the document should be consigned to the trash? Not at all.

That trashing is what I'm arguing against! If one of the sources that points to Confucius' take on the Ten Wings is Confucius' grandson, and it ends up in the Rutts dustbin, I'd say that's wrong.

> You need to get over a rigid expectation like this that it's either all literally true or it's all nonsense.

You misunderstand - that's Rutts point of view, and I'm arguing against it. If you go back to the specifics about Rutts work and take each one in detail you might get what I'm saying.

> As far as "When the documents at hand say that there are versions which date from before the versions you have, whether this is legitimate testimony or only "hearsay" we may not know, but it is not conjecture." -I don't know where you are getting this and I wonder if perhaps you yourself are engaging in the time honored Chinese process of putting words into the mouths of the ancients.

Again you misunderstand. The Eighth Wing says Zhouyi is a microcosm patterned after nature. Richard Rutt claims that this is false. That the Eighth Wing says this means it is *not* conjecture. It is testimony. To classify testimony as conjecture isn't accurate. Rutt has no way of knowing whether it is conjecture or not and neither do you.

> The Mawangdui documents (which I studied in the original manuscript form for my masters at Yale) were not retranslations.

If the oldest Zhouyi used loan characters it cannot be the first edition. An earlier edition used the characters that the loans substituted for. Using substitute terms is technically a translation.

> Over the years the script in use has changed. Earlier manuscripts use earlier forms. This is different from translation or retranslation.

OK. I guess you missed my use of the term "updated." Is it not possible that the extant copies were rewritten to conform to then-new political realities? Or rewritten, as Wilhelm/Baynes says, from scholarly text to fortune-telling?

> Once again, I suggest you let it go as you are very much out of your depth. <

You don't know what I'm talking about. I give you specifics and you give me back generalities. Your reviewing my comments on Rutt's work, without reading that work, you are in no position to judge my depth of understanding.

Never mind David. I'm not going to argue this with you. You simply do not have the background in sinology to discuss this meaningfully. 35 years of studying paperback commentary and translation in English just doesn't count. If you want to talk about 'loan characters' and so on you really need to have a better understanding of the development of the language and script than you do at present.

I'm not asking you to believe me or take my word. I'm asking you to think.

You have criticised me without addressing specifics. You take statements I made about specifics and you interpret them in general terms. You think I'm saying things I'm not.

When some people run out of argument they attack the person they are arguing with. This appears to be what you are doing.

A loan character involves the use of a homonym or the use of an inappropriate radical. Do you disagree? Sounds like at least part of the transcription failed to be true to the original. One point I'm trying to make is that it implies an original.

Especially at times when a lauguage is going through changes, like the Great Vowel shift in English, things like a transcription of a spoken account may have interesting errors.

I have made good points and you misunderstand. On top of that you refuse to address the specifics.

And you don't know what I've read, or studied.

Read the book, read my objections, please: at least go through the motions of someone who is competent before you criticise me.

David, I suppose what I have said sounds condescending and I am sorry for that. However it is very frustrating to discuss this with you because your every post is so full of misunderstandings and errors. This is not your fault. But to clear these up goes way beyond the scope of this forum: you need to learn classical Chinese so you know what you're talking about, if you want to discuss this topic. For all I know Rutt may be full of it, but at least he is talking on the basis of an understanding of the language and the development of the literature as a whole, not just one book and that in translation. I know you are very sincere in trying to defend your understanding of the text, but you just don't have the tools to do so, and to continue is pointless.

I see no possible Celtic-Chinese nexus. All I was referring to was the latinization of Kongzi's name into the word "Confucius" by Jesuit interlopers in China. It's kind of a leap from Jesuit missionaries in China to Celts, don't you think?

Interestingly, there is archaeological and linguistic evidence for a group of people who settled in the far west of modern China thousands of years ago who were related, at least culturally, to the Celts. They spoke dialects of a language called Tocharian which shows strong affinities with Celtic and other Indo-European languages. The Tocharians settled around the area known as the Tarim Basin approx. 3,000 years ago, and their remains include the well known mummies found there recently by Chinese archaeologists. These mummies were found with textiles that bear remarkable similarities to those found in areas of western Europe specific to the Celtic languages.

Their descendants subsequently converted to Buddhism and Manicheanism, and it is surviving translations of religious texts into Tocharian from the first millenium A.D. that attest their language.

While this western desert area is still remote from the heartland of Chinese civilzation, there are distinctly European visages represented in some Chinese depictions of diplomatic missions from that region during the first millenium, as well as statues of bearded barbarians from the same time period which may represent Tocharians (or perhaps Persians).

Eventually, due to climate change and conquest by Turkic tribes, the Tocharian languages are thought to have become extinct ca. 1,000 A.D.

As Louis...I did not really expect to find a connection...It IS quite a leap...But lo and behold!

I shall certainly delve into my own personal research devises on this subject matter, however, I was hoping you might enlighten me as to YOUR source of reference...May I inquire...from where have you gleaned this fascinating knowledge?